Now I understand why they want Fr. Pierre Chardin to become a Doctor of the Church. They are treating us like frogs in water, Vatican II is when they turned the heat on to boil us slowly! We need to go Trad...NOW. TLM.❤️🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼☦️
I am concerned that in my Parish are introducing the Cathesism of good shepherd this year and have Montessori preschool. I wonder who should be in charge of choosing catholic curricula and what type of credentials, is the priest? The Parish manager? The cathequist? We are talking of the formation of the soul here. What curricula will you recommend for a preschool, Elementary school and so on, including Religion class (Sacraments) that will not mislead to an heretics practices? My daughter was about to start her confirmation classes with this curricula of the CGS now, I'm ot sure!!!! Thank you
Unfortunately, I think that current catholic schools have a watered down curriculum. After Vatican II we lost thousands of nuns. They were a treasure! What have we done?
The new priest in our parish was not impressed with the knowledge of the GS students and is requiring the use of another Catholic theology book to be used during class. I ran off copies of the CGS exposed artices and will be giving them to our priest to read with a link to this audio. Many priests are impressed with the hands on material and have no clue of the extensive Catholic doctrine missing in the program or the theosophical ideas used by teachers to promote child self- teaching, and Idea never used in Catholic education. The people who think their CGS kids are superior in Catholic knowledge have no clue what content should be included in a Catholic Catechism. My suggestion is that you enlighten your priest on this errors of this program.
Peace and I pray you’re doing well. I’m a trained Montessori and CGS teacher and going through discernment on these. A devout Catholic. Is there a best way to communicate with the speaker of this podcast? Thank you and may you have a blessed day 🙏😇
Please do speak to him. Up until now I’ve trusted sensus fidelium entirely but this is complete misinformation. I was too shocked to even leave a comment. I’d have to unpack an hour worth of misinformation before I could explain and I have too many little ones to dedicate to that right now. God bless you in your endeavor to contact him.
Anne Smith I appreciate the platform and after my husband pointed out that this was not the priests we are used to hearing but the founder of the platform I understand now why I disagree, as my husband explained, he disagrees with almost every conclusion reached by the man from this podcast. Maria Montessori was a Thomist and she did NOT learn theosophy, but instead was fleeing from Hitler and spent the rest of her life in India and taught the country what she had already taught in Italy and around the world, to India. India took her in and protected her and many misbelieve she converted and all kinds of funny things but the facts are she stayed very Catholic until the end..Now, India has adapted what her observations proved and removed certain aspects like the Catholic Aquinas teaching of the human will etc. also the books you read written by her should be the originals and not revised if you are to make an educated decision of her, because revised additions all remove the Church aspect out of her teachings and as I’m sure you know, the trademarked version of Montessori is not her, she was plagiarized before she even trademarked her observations. Her (original) books are a wonderful window into the teachings of the child and the Church and their relationship with the creator and nothing contradicts church teachings but instead simplifies the nature of the child in the world and the adults vocation to “serve the child as Christ serves His Church”. So from the first 10 minutes the OP has said untrue things about her which immediately put me on guard of the rest of his conclusions to be made about her..and this has been a pattern of the resistance podcasts posted in the past. However the priests he hosts are why we love and appreciate sensus fidelium..On this topic however, he’s very misguided.
She was a Theosophist, which is a very occult branch of Freemasonry worshipping the devil basically. The first name of their newspaper was "Lucifer"... And the base of the Theosophists was in India.
I'm "trad". I teach CGS. Our local TLM priest and advocate for all things traditional is over CGS at his parish school, has taken the training, and supports it. Our diocese, which has one of the highest per capita rate of vocations in the world, supports CGS in every parish and school that wants it and subsidizes the training to make it affordable. CGS is a beautiful program. It can be taught in a way against the church - just like any curriculum. But I've seen CGS first hand, teaching it myself, and how it creates understanding in children beyond anything else we have tried. I find that the people who talk about this have never actually taken the training or seen an atrium at work. Maria had issues later in life, that doesn't negate her Catholic foundation and what she wrote back then. She wrote a wonderful book on the Latin Mass for children.
Was wondering if you watched his whole talk. He did talk about his experience with the method and gave some resources to research more about the catechesis of the good shephard. Just in case you didnt get to the end thought you'd like to know.
Interesting... Do you know much about Charlotte Mason and her pedagogy? I’d love to see a presentation on her. Her method is usually contrasted to Montessori’s. I know CM wasn’t Catholic, but I’d really like to know if there’s anything in her pedagogy that Catholics should be aware of.
We had planned on using it. I would really appreciate a Catholic opinion to clarify that it is ok to use. As far as I could see it seemed fine for us to adopt as long as you stick to using Catholic materials. If there is something I’m missing I am open to changing my mind if need be. I do love the CM method.
SepiaSerenade Keeping It Catholic website says there’s no way Charlotte Mason curriculum can be Catholicized. I hope this podcast can come up with another presentation on Charlotte Mason.
It seems as if a lot of the people in the comments have an inordinate attachment to Montessori. Say what you will about your own observations and personal applications of this method or any of her written works. At the end of the day, she was a heretic and the origins of Montessori are evil. It's no different than intentionally doing yoga poses and saying "I'm just stretching!" These things matter. We can recognize the benefit or even necessity of children learning practical life skills without grasping at straws trying to justify and cope for this specific method of education. Some of you are much too quick to defend a philosophy and curriculum literally founded by an occultist. Many Catholics don't know better, I was once in that same position. We just see wood toys, intentionality, and encouraging practical habits and we think it's all good. And these things are good when theyre rooted in a classical faith-based parenting style, in the same way stretching is good for you when its not done in yoga poses, no matter how you try to excuse it. Even when I was interested in the Montessori method I thought it was excessive how some parents let their children do literally everything and their home literally becomes their childs own apartment, everything lowered. This is not natural and its not according to Gods hierarchy for the family. I'm glad I found this video.
We belong to Christ! Montessori doesn’t own us or our children. We are not obligated to follow her ideas to the full if there is a problem. Somethings are great and simple life skill (teaching the children to pour water into a glass and getting toys appropriate for their development). And playing with a toy lamb isn’t harmful. You use the tools for the glory of God if you see a tool or toy that could work for you. If you feel parent guilt for not making everything exactly as Montessori would prefer, then please pause and give your work and schooling to God, not to Montessori. If strange things are taught at a parish then it needs to be addressed whatever it is (music liturgy, other religious groups, bible study, Good Shepherd…). Montessori is passed away, she is not our God and not a saint or doctor of the church. Don’t feel scared about Montessori, choose other things, basically we are not obligated to her and her ideas.
Are you being trained to teach Catechesis of the Good Shepherd or a Montessori School? Keep in mind that there are many good things to some of the Montessori mateirals. The problems arise from the psychology and ideology of Montessori School. You should not let the children call the teachers by their first name, this encourages disrespect and flows from Montessori's idea that the child is in some way superior to the adult. I am happy to answer any additional questions you have.
This is one person's opinion. I teach CGS myself, and I've seen exactly how orthodox it can be taught (as well as how wrong a workbook program can be taught, or CCD teachers putting their own spin on things). Teach CGS in an orthodox way, and you have an orthodox program. Our local TLM priest is in charge of CGS for our diocese.
@@brotherallen7418 montessori the person, montessori the method, and CGS all tend to be tied when I hear it spoken of in trad circles. I inferred the person was speaking of CGS since that's more common on Catholic circles, but I could be wrong.
@@brotherallen7418 I'm also familiar with the fact that you have an ax to grind against CGS, so I think it's disingenuous to suggest that's not where the discussion is going.
I have seen first hand the Jesuits teaching Teilhard de Chardin in the UK as recently as 2018. The seminar was delivered by a now retired Headteacher of a prestigious Catholic boys secondary school in SW London. The two day seminar was attended by many non-Catholics, who I suspect now assume this is what we Catholics believe, and a group of religious sisters who teach in seminary!
"I am the way,the truth and the life no man cometh to the father but by me"- Jesus christ (From the holy Bible) "Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of your sins". You must have Jesus christ as your lord and saviour to be saved.
Thank you! I thought Montessori was a Catholic, and assumed her to have been orthodox. It's so important to have been corrected on this. BTW did she have any connections with Rudolph Steiner?
@@suzanneb8625 I heard a bunch of people making claims, I actually haven't found any in her writings. Evolution hasn't been condemned as a heresy either, as much as I don't condone it. CGS teaches Creation beautifully.
A few things I want to comment on: First of all, thank you for this! I’ve considered myself a Montessorian for some time now. I’d say there’s a lot in Montessori pedagogy that I still value, but it’s good to know that a lot of the basis for her ideas are not compatible with Christianity. I appreciate that you mention that a lot of good has come from this pedagogical system, despite it’s flaws. I think there are good things within Montessori, but I wouldn’t consider myself a Montessorian anymore. Your understanding of the Montessori materials is wrong though. All materials are meant to be presented to the children, then the child explores the materials and learns that way. Even though Montessori may have believed in drawing knowledge out, how it really works is that the child plays with the materials and through that play, within the limits of how the materials are meant to be used, they learn. And honestly, there’s the whole “teacher shouldn’t have any role…” thing, but it’s not true. Montessori teachers jump in a lot to correct and guide and show and even teach! Should they be according to the method? Maybe not. Do they have too. Yep! Also, the reason Montessori isn’t used for higher grades isn’t so much because it can’t be, but because Maria Montessori died before developing a middle years program and an official Montessori middle years program has yet to be established. As an educator, I don’t believe history can only be taught through lecture. There are a lot of way more interesting ways to teach history, even for high schoolers and university students. Ultimately, what Montessori does right is it looks at what the child is naturally drawn to at certain stages of their life and uses that to teach them. Children before the age of about 6 ish learn primarily through movement and senses, so you give them activities that are movement and sensorial based for example. I certainly don’t agree with Plato that the knowledge is already in the child to be drawn out, but I don’t agree with Aristotle either that children are blank slates. I think, scientifically, we can recognize that children have an ability to grow and learn and do many other things that they don’t need to be taught to do. I think children do have an innate desire to learn and, whether consciously or not, they seek out opportunities to learn. I don’t agree with the notion that they don’t need to be taught. Children aren’t pre-filled with all the knowledge they will need. But, I think there are natural ways through which children learn better. Sitting a 2-year-old down and giving them a lecture will not allow them to learn anything, but providing for them the means to experience knowledge will help them learn. It seems to me then that even the newborn is not a blank slate. They’ve already lived for 9 months and experienced the world for 9 months, though they are not conscious for much of that time. They’ve got a set of DNA which doesn’t just affect superficial realities of their person, but also temperament and things they might be prone to. So, there’s a third way to look at the question then. Children are not blank slates, but they also aren’t complete. They require instruction, but they require the right kind of instruction and learning can happen in ways other than them being told something. Okay, the whole evolution of the soul thing is scary. My understanding has been that humans did evolve, as we have good archaeological evidence for this, but that God gifted the first truly human man and woman with rational, eternal souls. Part of me wonders if this was perhaps when the sudden explosion of language happened in the ancient world. It could have been that our same biological species had existed for some time before the gifting of the rational, eternal soul and a re-location of the first man and woman into the garden of Eden. This is speculation though. I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone does definitively. I believe God does mean to Deify us, but not through guided evolution, no. Like you said, it is not through natural means that Mary and the Saints are able to love God and us with an infinite love, but it is supernatural grace that allows that. Our sharing in the Divine life, while the ultimate purpose of man, does not happen through evolution, but through our human nature being elevated by Christ. What worries me is the Christological implications of such a theory. Would that mean Christ’s humanity is considered lesser as it is less evolved than ours? I shudder at the thought. But of course not. Christ is the perfect Man, and Divine by nature. Mary is the perfect Woman and though not naturally Divine, she shares supernaturally in Divine life. Having been involved with Montessori schools and CGS programs for a while, I can say I worry sometimes at the way children are viewed as closer to God, and in some ways, superior, especially morally. I think there’s something beautiful about the openness and trust of children and I think there are ways in which the world can corrupt us even more as we grow. Still, I don’t think children are morally superior. Morality requires a proper formation of conscious. Before the age of reason, one could argue that children are amoral. Afterwards, sure their sins are not as great as those of adults, but that’s usually because the temptations they naturally face are limited. That doesn’t mean, by God’s grace, that some children cannot be very virtuous. No, not at all. But it also doesn’t mean that they are superior to adults. Again, I don’t think children are naturally religious, but they certainly have the natural capacity to know God, which grows and develops as they age. They do need to be taught the truths of religion still. And yes, the whole “all religions are equal” is not true at all! And what a dangerous belief to hold to! In summary, I thought this was a really good presentation! Thank you!
You make same good points but the one thing I'll let you know is that the archeological evidence for evolution is actually very poor. The Cambrian explosion along with a lack of transitional forms negates Darwin's theory and thus scientists really need to reconsider that evolution is even a reality. Did wolves evolve into dogs. Sure. Science has shown that the different kinds of animals (like canine) do evolve over time but they have never shown one kind jumping to another kind (like cats). There is no mechanism either to show this. In fact, so many changes would have to happen that it is essentially impossible naturally. Now God of course could guide all of it but there is no historical or magisterial evidence to suggest God did this. Quite the opposite in fact. Anyways evolution is the plague of our times and has created these kinds of people. I think there are some good things to draw from Maria like you said. And I agree that guiding little children instead of forcing them to do this or that is the way to go because they simply respond better. If you want to understand human psychology better I'd suggest learning through St. Thomas. He is the way to go if you want to understand anything about reality. Of course, to understand him, you'll need guidance likely yourself when studying his material.
@@hoel7367 It's unfortunate that evolution gets taught as fact then. I'll need to look into it more. I agree that St. Thomas is great, but some of his practical advice for pedagogy is outdated. For example, St. Thomas recommends using corporal punishment, but we know from modern psychological research that corporal punishment like spanking hurts kids more than it helps. You could argue that there are certain situations in which the only option to show the gravity of the consequences of a child's behavior is to cause them physical pain, but science shows that consequences in which the child actually has to do something to make up for their negative behavior are way more beneficial for the child psychologically. I read a study not long ago that showed that children with ADHD who were spanked as kids are about 10 times more likely to develop other mental health issues as teenagers than kids who were not spanked. I wouldn't blame St. Thomas though. He didn't have the research we now do to know these things.
@@Ca8tisawesome I think you must be careful taking modern psychology as the know all for discipline. The Bible says "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him" Proverbs 13:24. I was taught in my college class on St. Thomas that he was expanding on this verse when he spoke about using corporal punishment as a means for discipline. Many of the modern researchers believe wholeheartedly in evolution and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them also are a part of theosophy or other occults. That being said, I think we all can agree that the Bible is and never will be outdated so we shouldn't take lightly the Divine teaching it provides and the comments Saints make on its content. I don't want to start an argument I just want to warn that just because modern psychology says something we shouldn't just accept it. I am by no means saying we should hover over our children waiting to spank them either but due diligence is necessary for each instance of discipline. Also, the personality of the child should be considered and if a mental issue is present, the discipline used should account for it.
@@BlessedThursday-1901 I don't agree with not disciplining children. In some cases, discipline needs to be harsh (though, there are different ways of understanding harsh). You can adjust accordingly to a mental health issue, but the problem is when the mental issue is unknown. I think if you want to teach a child to live peacefully, you must be peaceful towards them and causing physical pain is not peaceful. And something we can appreciate about modern research is the insights we have in neuro-psychology. We're getting better day by day at understanding how the experiences of our youth affect the development of our brains and neural processes. You cannot deny the role of nature in psychological disorders, but you also cannot deny the role of nurture either. Ultimately, I think 99% of the time that I have ever seen or heard of a parent spanking, there was a better way to discipline the child that they still would learn the lesson, but would not endure the physical hurt. There are the rare times: child runs out into street and gets a seat on the bum to know that they're actions had serious consequences. Or child reaches for a hot stove and gets a swat on the hand. These are legitimate uses of physical discipline. We cannot forget that all pain endured causes stress. Stress isn't necessarily bad. It keeps us safe. It helps us live and succeed and even contribute meaningfully to society. But too much stress, or stress that a person endures and cannot process causes trauma, which negatively impacts a person's ability to cope in the future.
@@Ca8tisawesome I agree with the points you have made and reading St. Thomas's take on spanking children I believe he would probably agree with it as well. He says in his reply that "rod" in Proverbs 13:24 can be interpreted in different ways. St. Thomas says that for discipline to be effective it must be done out of charity which makes it virtuous and meritorious, not out of wrath. This being said, it does not seem like St. Thomas is outdated at all.
My daughter (age 4) attends a private Montessori school founded by the Felician sisters where they have Catechesis of the Good Shepherd as part of their curriculum. I work 2 jobs and unfortunately can’t homeschool right now. Are you suggesting I’d be better off sending her to public preschool or perhaps a Catholic preschool?
Avoid brother Alan's statements at all costs. If it's a good CGS program, your daughter will learn to love Christ and we'll have good theological knowledge of who the Good Shepherd is. I don't know about those sisters or that Montessori School. I'm not a fan of Montessori secular education, but CGS has been good for my children. My wife is also the director of liturgy and teaches CGS level 1 at our Parish.
Jon Visser has stated that there are fallacies and errors in my arguments. Yet when another person asked what those errors were, he stated he would have to ask his wife. If you are concerned with the truth of my content, then take a look at the information I gave. I provide the sources. Also, next week I will give a talk on specific problems of CGS.
The book the Child and the Church was written in 1934, her books on the Montessori method were written after she moved to India in the fifties. I’m not saying she didn’t fall into error later in life. The Catechesis of the Good Shepherd was later developed by others like Sofia Cavalletti who was a theologian. Keep doing research.
1:01:35 "For a lie to be effective it must be based on some truth"... Yeah I'm sure Jesus was a real person, everything else, well it was quite effective.
Circa 51': liturgy and not doctrine? BOOM, the whole edifice of "traditionalism" as defended by many SSPX devotees was just blown in a million pieces!!!
the law of the Church is Lex orandi, lex credendi -- i.e. the law of what is to be prayed is the law of what is to be believed; Note that this is the LAW of the Church, not merely the SSPX thus if we change HOW we worship, our faith will be altered No one has ever held that a priest can follow the forms and not fall in into heresy; all of the bishops at Vatican II prayed the TLM and took the oath against modernism; moreover the traditional rite refutes many of the heresies espoused by the gnostics, e.g. the Nicean creed, reading the Gospel of John at the end of Mass.
@@ChristopherMarlowe Listen, I get the importance of the Liturgy; and I know that, emptied the ancient law and covenant by the Fullfilment of Christ, we needed a new rite, according to the new Dispensation and all that. But you can't go around saying that, if the "traditional" liturgy is reinstated, every problem in the Church would be solved, that is magical thinking, and is refuted by what this video says about the liturgy of this gnostic group. The problem with the Church is, mainly, that it was infiltrated, that this world is moribund and with many infections and diseases, that affect the faithful and even priests. To get to the root, you have to go back to Ockham and Marsilio, Wycliff, Huss, Luther, and, then, Descartes, Hobbes, etc. It's pretty tough. We have to fight against a tsunami of evil, and there are many who don't help, because of these types of fantasies. Liturgy is very important, but, without a cleansing of the spirit of the times (look at Bergoglio), you won't be able to fix even that
@@eticacasanova You can't base an argument on logical fallacies. e.g. >>>But you can't go around saying that, if the "traditional" liturgy is reinstated, every problem in the Church would be solved, that is magical thinking... No one is saying that. Your argument is a straw man. What traditionalists are saying is that the TLM and the other rites are better because they were in conformity with the faith. Lex orandi lex credandi is not the law of the church for nothing. The Holy Mass IS the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. If one truly believes this, then one should celebrate the Mass with reverence. But when we have communion in the hand, we KNOW that fragments of the host are falling on the ground. The Church teaches that every single one of those fragments is the Body of Christ. Now we have a contradiction: the Church is teaching that this is the Body of Christ, and also that it is fine to step on Him. 50 years later, what do we see? Less than 1/3 of professed Catholics believe in the Holy Presence. This is just one example.
@@ChristopherMarlowe While I agree with you about the reverence that we need to show to the Eucharist, we have St John Chrysostom describing... Receiving the Eucharist in the hands. Furthermore, while it's bad that 1/3 of US Catholics don't believe in the real presence, can we know for sure that it wasn't the case already before? When reading the prophets in the old testament, it is clear that the people of God are a majority of sinners who have such a hard time to not go back to worshipping idols. When we look at the early Church, so many heresies spread and were fought. Even worse was during St Catherine of Sienna's time, when the real Pope was in Avignon in France and not in Rome... If this happened today, everyone would go crazy calling for the end of the world. I guess that my point is, while we absolutely should strive to be holier and to grow in holiness together as members of the Body of Christ, isn't it wrong to expect the Church to be a Church full of Saints instead of a Church full of prostitutes and publicans? Isn't it wrong to see the "past" Church as a Church full of Holy People? For every great past Saint, there were probably thousands of Catholics who did not believe in the Real Presence for example. "There is nothing new under the sun" Maybe in 1000 years, people will see the Novus Ordo liturgy as a treasure of the "past real Catholic Church full of great Saints such as Blessed Carlo Acutis". You are welcome to disagree, but the more I think about those issues, the more I think that what matters is not specifically the liturgy. If people are not instructed properly on the Eucharistic presence, would it really change anything how they receive the Lord? It only changes anything for those who already believe in Him and wish to display more reverence. Tell me what you think, this js coming from someone who enjoys TLM a lot (I used to travel by bus a longer time just to get to an FSSP parish) but who thinks that the whole position of the Trad-world is coming to a dead end because they ignore the sinful tendencies of most men. If we restored TLM tomorrow, would it make all Catholics unbelievers or half-believers suddenly Holy? I would feel more confident to pray for them and offer Masses for them than going TLM only.
@@ILovePopeFrancis You make some interesting points, but also some fallacious arguments. The main fallacy you argue is that supporting TLM is somehow believing that there were no sinners in the Church before 1970, and no one believes this. There have always been bad people in the Church. Jesus said that He chose the 12 apostles, and yet one of them was a traitor. I would argue that the traditional Church does treat the sinful condition of mankind more effectively than the novus ordo: e.g. TLM parishes have communion right before every mass and at more hours during the week. NO churches usually have confession for 1 hour on Saturday. I think that the NO churches don't have confession because many of the priests and bishops do not believe in sin, or in the efficacy of the rite of confession. If they did, would they promote sinful lifestyles? I was raised in the novus ordo (NO), and what drove me to the TLM is the amount of heresy and sacrilege I saw regularly at Mass: communion in both species would lead to multiple communion chalices being poured down the sink instead of being consumed; I found a communion host stuck between the pages of the missal in the pew; and heresy was commonly preached at Mass. I know that that people at the TLM may also be in sin, but that is the nature of man. But I will never find consecrated hosts lying around anywhere because there is no communion in the hand; lay people do not handle the Precious Blood, so that will always be consumed by the priest; and homilies will be completely unoriginal and devoid of heresy. I don't say that it is impossible to raise up saints in the NO. But the sacrilege and heresy militate against this: e.g. NO families practice birth control far more often, and so there are smaller families and less priests and nuns. All over the world Catholic churches and Catholic schools are closing. There are less priests to say the mass and less nuns to teach in the schools. NO priests never preach against birth control, even though the Church has declared it a sin. The bishops of Canada even signed a schismatic document (the Winnipeg statement; see para 26) basically declaring that they would not enforce this teaching, and Paul VI did nothing about this. It would seem that the NO method of dealing with sin is largely to ignore it. That is not the way saints are made. Repeated exposure to sin makes our consciences dull: (1Tim 4:1-2) "Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared..."
My wife teaches Catechesis of the Good Sheppard. She's had years of training. We have many of Montessori's books. From my discussions and watching and even building the materials used for the students, I can vouch that what she is doing and how she is doing it, which is following to the letter the Montessori guidelines and method, is helping kids love Jesus. Unfortunately it seems like Catechesis of the Good Shepherd students have more theological training than many parents. When I was getting my Master's in education, we studied many different methods including Montessori. I did not like Montessori and her philosophy of drawing out what is inherent in the child. I was always opposed to Montessori being used as a secular education model, which is opposite of you. It's almost as if Catechesis of the Good Shepherd Montessori is a completely different person with different ideologies and philosophies then the secular Montessori method of drawing out what is inherently inside. I know you didn't put your name on this so I don't know your credentials to protect yourself. You've cited your sources and I've seen some of them before, your main source has many fallacies and inaccuracies. I wish you had education in the Montessori method through catechesis of the Good Shepherd. It would give you much more credibility to your arguments. I'm a Trad Catholic. And my wife is the music director at a very large V2 Parish. She's doing good things to catechise these Vatican II Suburbanites. The liberal Democrat, dare I say Catholics, are all scared and at home with their masks on, watching Mass within their protective walls. This allows my wife to implement good music and liturgy without direct negative feedback. She's good and wants what's best for the parish. She would not teach catechesis of the Good Shepherd if she felt that there was problems with in it.
@@antisha321 I'll need to look again it's been awhile since I've been on that website. I forward this to my wife she will be able to more eloquently explain.
Glad to see someone else stand up to this. I've seen "Brother Allan" before (who is commenting here a lot on this video), and he's neither a brother or a catechist. He has an agenda against CGS. CGS wants even created by Montessori, but by later students of her original method. Whatever Montessori did in later life doesn't change that CGS works and educates children as young as three about the beauty of our faith. I've seen it with my own eyes, and watched parents be amazed at their preschooler knowing more of the Mass and sacraments than they do.
@@Mrs_Homemaker just curious!!! How do you know what he's not, (Brother or catechist) why he will have an agenda? With what purpose? I'm really curious
I would like to invite who ever reads this to join me in praying to OUR LADY OF FATIMA for judge Amy Coney Barrett.That Our Lord and Our Lady will grant her victor and protect her and her family in the days to come.Ave Maria ❤🌹🕊
Thanks for this, 2 of my kids had 1 year of CGS, our local Catechists were certified for CGS. I have always known evolution was wrong, and have been aware of the Teilhardian heresy, but didn’t know or see that in the Atrium. I do now. Especially the teacher student relationships. Eeeeeeew! Very creepy. I forwarded these 2 videos to my parish DRE and Catechist trainers, and CGS teachers. I wonder how much fur will fly or how complicit they are. We’ll see...
CGS is like anything else, since we are involved, it can be corrupted. CGS presented with Christ as the Good Shepherd, based in scripture, and church tradition is amazing. We only explore what's in the Bible and what is church teaching. So not sure about Maria and all this. Our children are flourishing with CGS presented with Christ as the focus.
A great problem with the CGS is that Cavalletti's stated her focus is on scripture and liturgy when presenting material to the children. A little tradition is taught when presenting the Sacraments. I taught level 2 CGS for seven years and my frustration was in the lack of Catholic doctrine included in various scripture passages or included in the program. Here is a short list of the Catholic doctrine of faith; doctrine of God and His perfections, doctrine on the Blessed Trinity, sactifying grace and it's effect on our soul, creation of the angles, their role in history and our life, original, mortal and venial sin, what constitutes a mortal sin, Jesus made Peter the head of His Church, role and dutied of the Pope, Bishops, and cardinals, the Catholic Church is founded by Christ and the means of salvation, Mystical Body of Christ, Four Marks of the Church, study of the Creed, heaven, hell and purgatory, and Marian doctrines are missing from the CGS. When a Protestant can sit in an artium and not be offended by the content, the program is deficient in Catholic doctrine and dogma. A good catechism includes what I have written and much more. Protestants study scripture and liturgy, faithful Catholic understand scripture and liturgy through Catholic doctrine and dogma. Doctrine and dogma in every religion is what defines that particular faith and seperates them from the others. Catholic tradition is not a focus of teaching in the CGS.
I have been trained in Level I & II. I assumed that the doctrinal points you mention are presented in level III. Do you know if that is true. With my own kids, we do cgs work in groups and a more traditional catechism at home. After a couple decades of teaching catechism, my experience is that the public school kids who come to weekly class, retain almost nothing. However, my cgs students retain almost everything. Maybe the missing doctrine should be incorporated into the method. The method seems to be very effective.
@@teesa8 It is developmental so yes there are doctrinal contents that will be in Level III rather than Level II or Level I. I believe Trinity is one of those. It seems to me a lot of problem here is that people do not understand develpomental needs of child of different age, and that they have not seen a child that has gone through nine years of CGS. In my experience these are children who truly are able to have relationship with God based on love and sense of belonging vs. for the fear of "burning in eternal flames."One can venture to say that kind of relationship to faith will bring on a young person who has a deeper connection and need for God.
The majority of what you are presenting here is information about theosophy and then applying it to what she says. Reminds me very much of the way Protestants cherry pick quotes from various church councils and saints to show how satanic and anti-scriptural the Catholic Church is. Poor logic. You admit it can’t even be proven that Montessori was a theosophist. You’ve completely omitted how she developed her method through scientific observation, or what she’s actually written regarding the Child and the Church. It’s disappointing to watch your presentation as it doesn’t consider the things Montessori says in their context, historical and literary. You also seem to assume the Aristotelian view is the correct view. Do you not believe God places certain truths in our hearts?
Bingo! "Do you not believe God places certain truths in our hearts?" O ye, of little faith! Children are not vessels to be filled, they are already filled with Holy Spirit, and they might not have words yet but indeed their relashionship with Christ is deeper than some of the self professed erudites.
Sounds new age philosophy to me. I wouldn't be surprised if she was feminist early on in her life and got swept up with theosophy. Sounds like she was a liberal. I would stay away from this pedagogy. Homeschool your children!
If you read Saint Paul (I'm sure you do), you can see that knowledge of God is natural (Romans I,16 and ff., Sap. 13) and that natural law is known by gentiles, so they can be naturally good (Romans II,): "when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus". So, to say religions are bad or, worse, evil, is contrary to FAITH. Saint Thomas ends up his comments of the Aristotle's Metaphysics praising God, as expounded in Met. book 12. And, of course, his theology quotes THE PHILOSOPHER time and time again. Faith doesn't say religions are bad, how can it be that saying "there's one God, praised be God" be a bad thing, when it's true and all true is seen in the Spirit? The difference is grace, that you receive grace in the Church, and Faith is a supernatural gift, without which you can't be saved. Your talk is good, but that is a huge mistake. Not all religions are equal, Catholicism has a fundamental difference, but the others contain truthS and are of natural law
For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. Psalm 96.5(95.5 Douay Rheims) So the Bible says that false religions are bad.
But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. (1Cor 10:20)
@@ChristopherMarlowe You need to read the Bible with your intelligence, you have to determine what a passage is about or you're going to be like a protestant, saying that, to have images, constitutes idolatry. The Bible says what you quote, but it also says what I quote, It even says that a God in Athens was representation of Jesus, the unknown God. So, please, have a little discernment, when you are about to read the Bible, because Paul says that you are justified by faith without the works of the law, but that doesn't mean what Luther and other protestans interpret. If gentiles know God and fullfil the law, by applying reason, as Saint Paul says, then your passage needs explanation. For example, the Trinity is known to us by Revelation, S. Th, I, 32, but God is known by reason, as innumerable saints, even Scripture, and gentiles testify, so you can know God, even if you don't know all His attributes... Even if, in reality, we don't know Him for real, in Himself, in this life, as Saint Thomas also says in many places, like S. Th, I, I believe question 12, but don't remember now, at the begening, where he talks about the Name of God. So, that quote, without proper understanding, as it's so common, can lead to heresy, the heresy of irrationalism, a form.of gnosticism
@@eticacasanova It is interesting that I am saying what the Church teaches, and you are calling me a protestant. You do NOT say what the Church teaches, but you make sketchy arguments equating the natural law with false religions. Using reason is not practicing a false religion. Natural law is practical reason. The premise that that creatures have natures about which one can make meaningful arguments. A false religion says that one can find salvation or redemption through something other than the Church. A false religion is NOT the same as natural law.
Isn't there an orthodox concept of spiritual evolution acceptable to the church, specifically that promulgated by the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen? Not an evolution of man becoming God by His own power, but by God reaching down to man and taking him up into Himself, as man reaches down to consume the animal, the animal reaches down to the plant, and the plant reaches down to the mineral, which was the whole purpose of the incarnation of Christ. In this sense, this spiritual evolution can be none other than theistic. That said I don't believe in evolution of the body, but rather involution of the biological. Adam and Eve and the patriarchs enjoyed far greater health than we have.
Brotherhood of humanity sounds like Freemason
Now I understand why they want Fr. Pierre Chardin to become a Doctor of the Church.
They are treating us like frogs in water, Vatican II is when they turned the heat on to boil us slowly! We need to go Trad...NOW. TLM.❤️🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼☦️
I am concerned that in my Parish are introducing the Cathesism of good shepherd this year and have Montessori preschool. I wonder who should be in charge of choosing catholic curricula and what type of credentials, is the priest? The Parish manager? The cathequist?
We are talking of the formation of the soul here.
What curricula will you recommend for a preschool, Elementary school and so on, including Religion class (Sacraments) that will not mislead to an heretics practices? My daughter was about to start her confirmation classes with this curricula of the CGS now, I'm ot sure!!!!
Thank you
Unfortunately, I think that current catholic schools have a watered down curriculum. After Vatican II we lost thousands of nuns. They were a treasure! What have we done?
The new priest in our parish was not impressed with the knowledge of the GS students and is requiring the use of another Catholic theology book to be used during class. I ran off copies of the CGS exposed artices and will be giving them to our priest to read with a link to this audio. Many priests are impressed with the hands on material and have no clue of the extensive Catholic doctrine missing in the program or the theosophical ideas used by teachers to promote child self- teaching, and Idea never used in Catholic education. The people who think their CGS kids are superior in Catholic knowledge have no clue what content should be included in a Catholic Catechism. My suggestion is that you enlighten your priest on this errors of this program.
Peace and I pray you’re doing well. I’m a trained Montessori and CGS teacher and going through discernment on these. A devout Catholic. Is there a best way to communicate with the speaker of this podcast? Thank you and may you have a blessed day 🙏😇
Please do speak to him. Up until now I’ve trusted sensus fidelium entirely but this is complete misinformation. I was too shocked to even leave a comment. I’d have to unpack an hour worth of misinformation before I could explain and I have too many little ones to dedicate to that right now. God bless you in your endeavor to contact him.
Anne Smith I appreciate the platform and after my husband pointed out that this was not the priests we are used to hearing but the founder of the platform I understand now why I disagree, as my husband explained, he disagrees with almost every conclusion reached by the man from this podcast. Maria Montessori was a Thomist and she did NOT learn theosophy, but instead was fleeing from Hitler and spent the rest of her life in India and taught the country what she had already taught in Italy and around the world, to India. India took her in and protected her and many misbelieve she converted and all kinds of funny things but the facts are she stayed very Catholic until the end..Now, India has adapted what her observations proved and removed certain aspects like the Catholic Aquinas teaching of the human will etc. also the books you read written by her should be the originals and not revised if you are to make an educated decision of her, because revised additions all remove the Church aspect out of her teachings and as I’m sure you know, the trademarked version of Montessori is not her, she was plagiarized before she even trademarked her observations. Her (original) books are a wonderful window into the teachings of the child and the Church and their relationship with the creator and nothing contradicts church teachings but instead simplifies the nature of the child in the world and the adults vocation to “serve the child as Christ serves His Church”. So from the first 10 minutes the OP has said untrue things about her which immediately put me on guard of the rest of his conclusions to be made about her..and this has been a pattern of the resistance podcasts posted in the past. However the priests he hosts are why we love and appreciate sensus fidelium..On this topic however, he’s very misguided.
Where can I read about her conversion to pagan Eastern religion?
She was a Theosophist, which is a very occult branch of Freemasonry worshipping the devil basically. The first name of their newspaper was "Lucifer"... And the base of the Theosophists was in India.
I'm "trad". I teach CGS. Our local TLM priest and advocate for all things traditional is over CGS at his parish school, has taken the training, and supports it. Our diocese, which has one of the highest per capita rate of vocations in the world, supports CGS in every parish and school that wants it and subsidizes the training to make it affordable.
CGS is a beautiful program. It can be taught in a way against the church - just like any curriculum. But I've seen CGS first hand, teaching it myself, and how it creates understanding in children beyond anything else we have tried. I find that the people who talk about this have never actually taken the training or seen an atrium at work. Maria had issues later in life, that doesn't negate her Catholic foundation and what she wrote back then. She wrote a wonderful book on the Latin Mass for children.
Totally agree with you. And "Mass explained to Children" is indeed one of the most beautiful books about Latin Mass.
Was wondering if you watched his whole talk. He did talk about his experience with the method and gave some resources to research more about the catechesis of the good shephard. Just in case you didnt get to the end thought you'd like to know.
Interesting... Do you know much about Charlotte Mason and her pedagogy? I’d love to see a presentation on her. Her method is usually contrasted to Montessori’s. I know CM wasn’t Catholic, but I’d really like to know if there’s anything in her pedagogy that Catholics should be aware of.
I am seeking the same information!! I would love to hear an authentic Catholic opinion on Charlotte Mason and if it’s ok to use her method.
We had planned on using it. I would really appreciate a Catholic opinion to clarify that it is ok to use. As far as I could see it seemed fine for us to adopt as long as you stick to using Catholic materials. If there is something I’m missing I am open to changing my mind if need be. I do love the CM method.
SepiaSerenade Keeping It Catholic website says there’s no way Charlotte Mason curriculum can be Catholicized. I hope this podcast can come up with another presentation on Charlotte Mason.
Ave Maria Homeschooling Thank you! I will look into that. Yes, I hope this podcast will present one on CM too.
Ave Maria Homeschooling If I may ask, in your opinion, which Catholic Curriculum have you found to be the best?
As a teacher - thank you! ❤️
I am thankful for this clarification
You can tell that half the comments didn''t even listen to the whole video.
Thank you.
I’ve always seen Montessori schools and wondered what they taught. Whenever humans start talking about evolution, bad things start happening.
Me too I always wondered too. Now I see
🤦🏽♀️
It seems as if a lot of the people in the comments have an inordinate attachment to Montessori. Say what you will about your own observations and personal applications of this method or any of her written works. At the end of the day, she was a heretic and the origins of Montessori are evil. It's no different than intentionally doing yoga poses and saying "I'm just stretching!" These things matter. We can recognize the benefit or even necessity of children learning practical life skills without grasping at straws trying to justify and cope for this specific method of education. Some of you are much too quick to defend a philosophy and curriculum literally founded by an occultist. Many Catholics don't know better, I was once in that same position. We just see wood toys, intentionality, and encouraging practical habits and we think it's all good. And these things are good when theyre rooted in a classical faith-based parenting style, in the same way stretching is good for you when its not done in yoga poses, no matter how you try to excuse it. Even when I was interested in the Montessori method I thought it was excessive how some parents let their children do literally everything and their home literally becomes their childs own apartment, everything lowered. This is not natural and its not according to Gods hierarchy for the family. I'm glad I found this video.
Do u have a video on Christianity
We belong to Christ! Montessori doesn’t own us or our children. We are not obligated to follow her ideas to the full if there is a problem. Somethings are great and simple life skill (teaching the children to pour water into a glass and getting toys appropriate for their development). And playing with a toy lamb isn’t harmful. You use the tools for the glory of God if you see a tool or toy that could work for you. If you feel parent guilt for not making everything exactly as Montessori would prefer, then please pause and give your work and schooling to God, not to Montessori. If strange things are taught at a parish then it needs to be addressed whatever it is (music liturgy, other religious groups, bible study, Good Shepherd…). Montessori is passed away, she is not our God and not a saint or doctor of the church. Don’t feel scared about Montessori, choose other things, basically we are not obligated to her and her ideas.
What can I do if I’m being trained in this? I’m worried.
Are you being trained to teach Catechesis of the Good Shepherd or a Montessori School? Keep in mind that there are many good things to some of the Montessori mateirals. The problems arise from the psychology and ideology of Montessori School. You should not let the children call the teachers by their first name, this encourages disrespect and flows from Montessori's idea that the child is in some way superior to the adult. I am happy to answer any additional questions you have.
This is one person's opinion. I teach CGS myself, and I've seen exactly how orthodox it can be taught (as well as how wrong a workbook program can be taught, or CCD teachers putting their own spin on things). Teach CGS in an orthodox way, and you have an orthodox program. Our local TLM priest is in charge of CGS for our diocese.
@@Mrs_Homemaker If you paid attention to the film, this talk was on Montessori. Pt2 will be on Catechesis of the Good Shepherd.
@@brotherallen7418 montessori the person, montessori the method, and CGS all tend to be tied when I hear it spoken of in trad circles. I inferred the person was speaking of CGS since that's more common on Catholic circles, but I could be wrong.
@@brotherallen7418 I'm also familiar with the fact that you have an ax to grind against CGS, so I think it's disingenuous to suggest that's not where the discussion is going.
I have seen first hand the Jesuits teaching Teilhard de Chardin in the UK as recently as 2018. The seminar was delivered by a now retired Headteacher of a prestigious Catholic boys secondary school in SW London. The two day seminar was attended by many non-Catholics, who I suspect now assume this is what we Catholics believe, and a group of religious sisters who teach in seminary!
What are your thoughts on Charlotte Mason’s philosophy?
"I am the way,the truth and the life no man cometh to the father but by me"- Jesus christ
(From the holy Bible)
"Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of your sins".
You must have Jesus christ as your lord and saviour to be saved.
Thank you! I thought Montessori was a Catholic, and assumed her to have been orthodox. It's so important to have been corrected on this. BTW did she have any connections with Rudolph Steiner?
I'm still waiting for any evidence of heresy.
She ws a Rousseauist, and denied original sin... Also she believed in evolution.
@@suzanneb8625 I heard a bunch of people making claims, I actually haven't found any in her writings.
Evolution hasn't been condemned as a heresy either, as much as I don't condone it. CGS teaches Creation beautifully.
A few things I want to comment on:
First of all, thank you for this! I’ve considered myself a Montessorian for some time now. I’d say there’s a lot in Montessori pedagogy that I still value, but it’s good to know that a lot of the basis for her ideas are not compatible with Christianity.
I appreciate that you mention that a lot of good has come from this pedagogical system, despite it’s flaws. I think there are good things within Montessori, but I wouldn’t consider myself a Montessorian anymore. Your understanding of the Montessori materials is wrong though. All materials are meant to be presented to the children, then the child explores the materials and learns that way. Even though Montessori may have believed in drawing knowledge out, how it really works is that the child plays with the materials and through that play, within the limits of how the materials are meant to be used, they learn. And honestly, there’s the whole “teacher shouldn’t have any role…” thing, but it’s not true. Montessori teachers jump in a lot to correct and guide and show and even teach! Should they be according to the method? Maybe not. Do they have too. Yep!
Also, the reason Montessori isn’t used for higher grades isn’t so much because it can’t be, but because Maria Montessori died before developing a middle years program and an official Montessori middle years program has yet to be established. As an educator, I don’t believe history can only be taught through lecture. There are a lot of way more interesting ways to teach history, even for high schoolers and university students. Ultimately, what Montessori does right is it looks at what the child is naturally drawn to at certain stages of their life and uses that to teach them. Children before the age of about 6 ish learn primarily through movement and senses, so you give them activities that are movement and sensorial based for example.
I certainly don’t agree with Plato that the knowledge is already in the child to be drawn out, but I don’t agree with Aristotle either that children are blank slates. I think, scientifically, we can recognize that children have an ability to grow and learn and do many other things that they don’t need to be taught to do. I think children do have an innate desire to learn and, whether consciously or not, they seek out opportunities to learn. I don’t agree with the notion that they don’t need to be taught. Children aren’t pre-filled with all the knowledge they will need. But, I think there are natural ways through which children learn better. Sitting a 2-year-old down and giving them a lecture will not allow them to learn anything, but providing for them the means to experience knowledge will help them learn. It seems to me then that even the newborn is not a blank slate. They’ve already lived for 9 months and experienced the world for 9 months, though they are not conscious for much of that time. They’ve got a set of DNA which doesn’t just affect superficial realities of their person, but also temperament and things they might be prone to. So, there’s a third way to look at the question then. Children are not blank slates, but they also aren’t complete. They require instruction, but they require the right kind of instruction and learning can happen in ways other than them being told something.
Okay, the whole evolution of the soul thing is scary. My understanding has been that humans did evolve, as we have good archaeological evidence for this, but that God gifted the first truly human man and woman with rational, eternal souls. Part of me wonders if this was perhaps when the sudden explosion of language happened in the ancient world. It could have been that our same biological species had existed for some time before the gifting of the rational, eternal soul and a re-location of the first man and woman into the garden of Eden. This is speculation though. I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone does definitively.
I believe God does mean to Deify us, but not through guided evolution, no. Like you said, it is not through natural means that Mary and the Saints are able to love God and us with an infinite love, but it is supernatural grace that allows that. Our sharing in the Divine life, while the ultimate purpose of man, does not happen through evolution, but through our human nature being elevated by Christ. What worries me is the Christological implications of such a theory. Would that mean Christ’s humanity is considered lesser as it is less evolved than ours? I shudder at the thought. But of course not. Christ is the perfect Man, and Divine by nature. Mary is the perfect Woman and though not naturally Divine, she shares supernaturally in Divine life.
Having been involved with Montessori schools and CGS programs for a while, I can say I worry sometimes at the way children are viewed as closer to God, and in some ways, superior, especially morally. I think there’s something beautiful about the openness and trust of children and I think there are ways in which the world can corrupt us even more as we grow. Still, I don’t think children are morally superior. Morality requires a proper formation of conscious. Before the age of reason, one could argue that children are amoral. Afterwards, sure their sins are not as great as those of adults, but that’s usually because the temptations they naturally face are limited. That doesn’t mean, by God’s grace, that some children cannot be very virtuous. No, not at all. But it also doesn’t mean that they are superior to adults.
Again, I don’t think children are naturally religious, but they certainly have the natural capacity to know God, which grows and develops as they age. They do need to be taught the truths of religion still. And yes, the whole “all religions are equal” is not true at all! And what a dangerous belief to hold to!
In summary, I thought this was a really good presentation! Thank you!
You make same good points but the one thing I'll let you know is that the archeological evidence for evolution is actually very poor. The Cambrian explosion along with a lack of transitional forms negates Darwin's theory and thus scientists really need to reconsider that evolution is even a reality. Did wolves evolve into dogs. Sure. Science has shown that the different kinds of animals (like canine) do evolve over time but they have never shown one kind jumping to another kind (like cats). There is no mechanism either to show this. In fact, so many changes would have to happen that it is essentially impossible naturally. Now God of course could guide all of it but there is no historical or magisterial evidence to suggest God did this. Quite the opposite in fact. Anyways evolution is the plague of our times and has created these kinds of people. I think there are some good things to draw from Maria like you said. And I agree that guiding little children instead of forcing them to do this or that is the way to go because they simply respond better. If you want to understand human psychology better I'd suggest learning through St. Thomas. He is the way to go if you want to understand anything about reality. Of course, to understand him, you'll need guidance likely yourself when studying his material.
@@hoel7367 It's unfortunate that evolution gets taught as fact then. I'll need to look into it more.
I agree that St. Thomas is great, but some of his practical advice for pedagogy is outdated. For example, St. Thomas recommends using corporal punishment, but we know from modern psychological research that corporal punishment like spanking hurts kids more than it helps. You could argue that there are certain situations in which the only option to show the gravity of the consequences of a child's behavior is to cause them physical pain, but science shows that consequences in which the child actually has to do something to make up for their negative behavior are way more beneficial for the child psychologically. I read a study not long ago that showed that children with ADHD who were spanked as kids are about 10 times more likely to develop other mental health issues as teenagers than kids who were not spanked.
I wouldn't blame St. Thomas though. He didn't have the research we now do to know these things.
@@Ca8tisawesome I think you must be careful taking modern psychology as the know all for discipline. The Bible says "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him" Proverbs 13:24. I was taught in my college class on St. Thomas that he was expanding on this verse when he spoke about using corporal punishment as a means for discipline. Many of the modern researchers believe wholeheartedly in evolution and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them also are a part of theosophy or other occults. That being said, I think we all can agree that the Bible is and never will be outdated so we shouldn't take lightly the Divine teaching it provides and the comments Saints make on its content. I don't want to start an argument I just want to warn that just because modern psychology says something we shouldn't just accept it. I am by no means saying we should hover over our children waiting to spank them either but due diligence is necessary for each instance of discipline. Also, the personality of the child should be considered and if a mental issue is present, the discipline used should account for it.
@@BlessedThursday-1901 I don't agree with not disciplining children. In some cases, discipline needs to be harsh (though, there are different ways of understanding harsh).
You can adjust accordingly to a mental health issue, but the problem is when the mental issue is unknown.
I think if you want to teach a child to live peacefully, you must be peaceful towards them and causing physical pain is not peaceful.
And something we can appreciate about modern research is the insights we have in neuro-psychology. We're getting better day by day at understanding how the experiences of our youth affect the development of our brains and neural processes. You cannot deny the role of nature in psychological disorders, but you also cannot deny the role of nurture either.
Ultimately, I think 99% of the time that I have ever seen or heard of a parent spanking, there was a better way to discipline the child that they still would learn the lesson, but would not endure the physical hurt. There are the rare times: child runs out into street and gets a seat on the bum to know that they're actions had serious consequences. Or child reaches for a hot stove and gets a swat on the hand. These are legitimate uses of physical discipline.
We cannot forget that all pain endured causes stress. Stress isn't necessarily bad. It keeps us safe. It helps us live and succeed and even contribute meaningfully to society. But too much stress, or stress that a person endures and cannot process causes trauma, which negatively impacts a person's ability to cope in the future.
@@Ca8tisawesome I agree with the points you have made and reading St. Thomas's take on spanking children I believe he would probably agree with it as well. He says in his reply that "rod" in Proverbs 13:24 can be interpreted in different ways. St. Thomas says that for discipline to be effective it must be done out of charity which makes it virtuous and meritorious, not out of wrath. This being said, it does not seem like St. Thomas is outdated at all.
Is this called the resistance podcast because it is by priests of the SSPX resistance?
Lol wut
It’s against the worldliness within the church. Def NOT SSPX!
Thank you for this very important and informative exposition.
And yet von Balthasar wrote a Foreword to the book Meditations on the Tarot, endorsing it, a book full of patent gnosticism.
Hitler was a theosophist.
Scholasticism is the answer.
My daughter (age 4) attends a private Montessori school founded by the Felician sisters where they have Catechesis of the Good Shepherd as part of their curriculum. I work 2 jobs and unfortunately can’t homeschool right now. Are you suggesting I’d be better off sending her to public preschool or perhaps a Catholic preschool?
I would avoid Catechesis of the Good Shepherd at all costs.
Avoid brother Alan's statements at all costs. If it's a good CGS program, your daughter will learn to love Christ and we'll have good theological knowledge of who the Good Shepherd is. I don't know about those sisters or that Montessori School. I'm not a fan of Montessori secular education, but CGS has been good for my children. My wife is also the director of liturgy and teaches CGS level 1 at our Parish.
Jon Visser has stated that there are fallacies and errors in my arguments. Yet when another person asked what those errors were, he stated he would have to ask his wife. If you are concerned with the truth of my content, then take a look at the information I gave. I provide the sources. Also, next week I will give a talk on specific problems of CGS.
@@brotherallen7418 did you ever? I haven't found any evidence of heresy in CGS. I also can't find any evidence she endorsed a cult.
The book the Child and the Church was written in 1934, her books on the Montessori method were written after she moved to India in the fifties. I’m not saying she didn’t fall into error later in life. The Catechesis of the Good Shepherd was later developed by others like Sofia Cavalletti who was a theologian. Keep doing research.
1:01:35 "For a lie to be effective it must be based on some truth"... Yeah I'm sure Jesus was a real person, everything else, well it was quite effective.
Circa 51': liturgy and not doctrine? BOOM, the whole edifice of "traditionalism" as defended by many SSPX devotees was just blown in a million pieces!!!
the law of the Church is Lex orandi, lex credendi -- i.e. the law of what is to be prayed is the law of what is to be believed; Note that this is the LAW of the Church, not merely the SSPX
thus if we change HOW we worship, our faith will be altered
No one has ever held that a priest can follow the forms and not fall in into heresy; all of the bishops at Vatican II prayed the TLM and took the oath against modernism; moreover the traditional rite refutes many of the heresies espoused by the gnostics, e.g. the Nicean creed, reading the Gospel of John at the end of Mass.
@@ChristopherMarlowe Listen, I get the importance of the Liturgy; and I know that, emptied the ancient law and covenant by the Fullfilment of Christ, we needed a new rite, according to the new Dispensation and all that. But you can't go around saying that, if the "traditional" liturgy is reinstated, every problem in the Church would be solved, that is magical thinking, and is refuted by what this video says about the liturgy of this gnostic group. The problem with the Church is, mainly, that it was infiltrated, that this world is moribund and with many infections and diseases, that affect the faithful and even priests. To get to the root, you have to go back to Ockham and Marsilio, Wycliff, Huss, Luther, and, then, Descartes, Hobbes, etc. It's pretty tough. We have to fight against a tsunami of evil, and there are many who don't help, because of these types of fantasies. Liturgy is very important, but, without a cleansing of the spirit of the times (look at Bergoglio), you won't be able to fix even that
@@eticacasanova You can't base an argument on logical fallacies. e.g.
>>>But you can't go around saying that, if the "traditional" liturgy is reinstated, every problem in the Church would be solved, that is magical thinking...
No one is saying that. Your argument is a straw man. What traditionalists are saying is that the TLM and the other rites are better because they were in conformity with the faith. Lex orandi lex credandi is not the law of the church for nothing. The Holy Mass IS the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. If one truly believes this, then one should celebrate the Mass with reverence. But when we have communion in the hand, we KNOW that fragments of the host are falling on the ground. The Church teaches that every single one of those fragments is the Body of Christ. Now we have a contradiction: the Church is teaching that this is the Body of Christ, and also that it is fine to step on Him. 50 years later, what do we see? Less than 1/3 of professed Catholics believe in the Holy Presence. This is just one example.
@@ChristopherMarlowe While I agree with you about the reverence that we need to show to the Eucharist, we have St John Chrysostom describing... Receiving the Eucharist in the hands. Furthermore, while it's bad that 1/3 of US Catholics don't believe in the real presence, can we know for sure that it wasn't the case already before?
When reading the prophets in the old testament, it is clear that the people of God are a majority of sinners who have such a hard time to not go back to worshipping idols. When we look at the early Church, so many heresies spread and were fought. Even worse was during St Catherine of Sienna's time, when the real Pope was in Avignon in France and not in Rome... If this happened today, everyone would go crazy calling for the end of the world.
I guess that my point is, while we absolutely should strive to be holier and to grow in holiness together as members of the Body of Christ, isn't it wrong to expect the Church to be a Church full of Saints instead of a Church full of prostitutes and publicans? Isn't it wrong to see the "past" Church as a Church full of Holy People? For every great past Saint, there were probably thousands of Catholics who did not believe in the Real Presence for example.
"There is nothing new under the sun"
Maybe in 1000 years, people will see the Novus Ordo liturgy as a treasure of the "past real Catholic Church full of great Saints such as Blessed Carlo Acutis".
You are welcome to disagree, but the more I think about those issues, the more I think that what matters is not specifically the liturgy. If people are not instructed properly on the Eucharistic presence, would it really change anything how they receive the Lord? It only changes anything for those who already believe in Him and wish to display more reverence.
Tell me what you think, this js coming from someone who enjoys TLM a lot (I used to travel by bus a longer time just to get to an FSSP parish) but who thinks that the whole position of the Trad-world is coming to a dead end because they ignore the sinful tendencies of most men. If we restored TLM tomorrow, would it make all Catholics unbelievers or half-believers suddenly Holy? I would feel more confident to pray for them and offer Masses for them than going TLM only.
@@ILovePopeFrancis You make some interesting points, but also some fallacious arguments.
The main fallacy you argue is that supporting TLM is somehow believing that there were no sinners in the Church before 1970, and no one believes this. There have always been bad people in the Church. Jesus said that He chose the 12 apostles, and yet one of them was a traitor.
I would argue that the traditional Church does treat the sinful condition of mankind more effectively than the novus ordo: e.g. TLM parishes have communion right before every mass and at more hours during the week. NO churches usually have confession for 1 hour on Saturday. I think that the NO churches don't have confession because many of the priests and bishops do not believe in sin, or in the efficacy of the rite of confession. If they did, would they promote sinful lifestyles?
I was raised in the novus ordo (NO), and what drove me to the TLM is the amount of heresy and sacrilege I saw regularly at Mass: communion in both species would lead to multiple communion chalices being poured down the sink instead of being consumed; I found a communion host stuck between the pages of the missal in the pew; and heresy was commonly preached at Mass.
I know that that people at the TLM may also be in sin, but that is the nature of man. But I will never find consecrated hosts lying around anywhere because there is no communion in the hand; lay people do not handle the Precious Blood, so that will always be consumed by the priest; and homilies will be completely unoriginal and devoid of heresy.
I don't say that it is impossible to raise up saints in the NO. But the sacrilege and heresy militate against this: e.g. NO families practice birth control far more often, and so there are smaller families and less priests and nuns. All over the world Catholic churches and Catholic schools are closing. There are less priests to say the mass and less nuns to teach in the schools. NO priests never preach against birth control, even though the Church has declared it a sin. The bishops of Canada even signed a schismatic document (the Winnipeg statement; see para 26) basically declaring that they would not enforce this teaching, and Paul VI did nothing about this. It would seem that the NO method of dealing with sin is largely to ignore it. That is not the way saints are made. Repeated exposure to sin makes our consciences dull: (1Tim 4:1-2) "Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared..."
My wife teaches Catechesis of the Good Sheppard. She's had years of training. We have many of Montessori's books. From my discussions and watching and even building the materials used for the students, I can vouch that what she is doing and how she is doing it, which is following to the letter the Montessori guidelines and method, is helping kids love Jesus. Unfortunately it seems like Catechesis of the Good Shepherd students have more theological training than many parents.
When I was getting my Master's in education, we studied many different methods including Montessori. I did not like Montessori and her philosophy of drawing out what is inherent in the child. I was always opposed to Montessori being used as a secular education model, which is opposite of you. It's almost as if Catechesis of the Good Shepherd Montessori is a completely different person with different ideologies and philosophies then the secular Montessori method of drawing out what is inherently inside.
I know you didn't put your name on this so I don't know your credentials to protect yourself. You've cited your sources and I've seen some of them before, your main source has many fallacies and inaccuracies. I wish you had education in the Montessori method through catechesis of the Good Shepherd. It would give you much more credibility to your arguments.
I'm a Trad Catholic. And my wife is the music director at a very large V2 Parish. She's doing good things to catechise these Vatican II Suburbanites. The liberal Democrat, dare I say Catholics, are all scared and at home with their masks on, watching Mass within their protective walls. This allows my wife to implement good music and liturgy without direct negative feedback. She's good and wants what's best for the parish. She would not teach catechesis of the Good Shepherd if she felt that there was problems with in it.
Explain inaccuracies and fallacies. Are the quotes used fabricaded or they are used as found in sources named in footnotes?
@@antisha321 I'll need to look again it's been awhile since I've been on that website. I forward this to my wife she will be able to more eloquently explain.
Glad to see someone else stand up to this. I've seen "Brother Allan" before (who is commenting here a lot on this video), and he's neither a brother or a catechist. He has an agenda against CGS. CGS wants even created by Montessori, but by later students of her original method. Whatever Montessori did in later life doesn't change that CGS works and educates children as young as three about the beauty of our faith. I've seen it with my own eyes, and watched parents be amazed at their preschooler knowing more of the Mass and sacraments than they do.
@@Mrs_Homemaker just curious!!! How do you know what he's not, (Brother or catechist) why he will have an agenda? With what purpose? I'm really curious
Your wife makes herself the authority of what is good... that is a problem in itself
I would like to invite who ever reads this to join me in praying to OUR LADY OF FATIMA for judge Amy Coney Barrett.That Our Lord and Our Lady will grant her victor and protect her and her family in the days to come.Ave Maria ❤🌹🕊
We have needed this video for awhile. Great job! Well, documented and laid out. Who is the presenter?
Br. Perry Smith
Thanks for this, 2 of my kids had 1
year of CGS, our local Catechists were certified for CGS. I have always known evolution was wrong, and have been aware of the Teilhardian heresy, but didn’t know or see that in the Atrium. I do now. Especially the teacher student relationships. Eeeeeeew! Very creepy. I forwarded these 2 videos to my parish DRE and Catechist trainers, and CGS teachers. I wonder how much fur will fly or how complicit they are. We’ll see...
I guess that the Montessori system did not do English "good"--sorry, "well".
CGS is like anything else, since we are involved, it can be corrupted. CGS presented with Christ as the Good Shepherd, based in scripture, and church tradition is amazing. We only explore what's in the Bible and what is church teaching. So not sure about Maria and all this. Our children are flourishing with CGS presented with Christ as the focus.
A great problem with the CGS is that Cavalletti's stated her focus is on scripture and liturgy when presenting material to the children. A little tradition is taught when presenting the Sacraments. I taught level 2 CGS for seven years and my frustration was in the lack of Catholic doctrine included in various scripture passages or included in the program.
Here is a short list of the Catholic doctrine of faith; doctrine of God and His perfections, doctrine on the Blessed Trinity, sactifying grace and it's effect on our soul, creation of the angles, their role in history and our life, original, mortal and venial sin, what constitutes a mortal sin, Jesus made Peter the head of His Church, role and dutied of the Pope, Bishops, and cardinals, the Catholic Church is founded by Christ and the means of salvation, Mystical Body of Christ, Four Marks of the Church, study of the Creed, heaven, hell and purgatory, and Marian doctrines are missing from the CGS. When a Protestant can sit in an artium and not be offended by the content, the program is deficient in Catholic doctrine and dogma. A good catechism includes what I have written and much more. Protestants study scripture and liturgy, faithful Catholic understand scripture and liturgy through Catholic doctrine and dogma. Doctrine and dogma in every religion is what defines that particular faith and seperates them from the others. Catholic tradition is not a focus of teaching in the CGS.
I have been trained in Level I & II. I assumed that the doctrinal points you mention are presented in level III. Do you know if that is true.
With my own kids, we do cgs work in groups and a more traditional catechism at home.
After a couple decades of teaching catechism, my experience is that the public school kids who come to weekly class, retain almost nothing. However, my cgs students retain almost everything.
Maybe the missing doctrine should be incorporated into the method. The method seems to be very effective.
@@teesa8 It is developmental so yes there are doctrinal contents that will be in Level III rather than Level II or Level I. I believe Trinity is one of those. It seems to me a lot of problem here is that people do not understand develpomental needs of child of different age, and that they have not seen a child that has gone through nine years of CGS. In my experience these are children who truly are able to have relationship with God based on love and sense of belonging vs. for the fear of "burning in eternal flames."One can venture to say that kind of relationship to faith will bring on a young person who has a deeper connection and need for God.
The majority of what you are presenting here is information about theosophy and then applying it to what she says. Reminds me very much of the way Protestants cherry pick quotes from various church councils and saints to show how satanic and anti-scriptural the Catholic Church is. Poor logic. You admit it can’t even be proven that Montessori was a theosophist. You’ve completely omitted how she developed her method through scientific observation, or what she’s actually written regarding the Child and the Church. It’s disappointing to watch your presentation as it doesn’t consider the things Montessori says in their context, historical and literary.
You also seem to assume the Aristotelian view is the correct view. Do you not believe God places certain truths in our hearts?
Bingo! "Do you not believe God places certain truths in our hearts?" O ye, of little faith! Children are not vessels to be filled, they are already filled with Holy Spirit, and they might not have words yet but indeed their relashionship with Christ is deeper than some of the self professed erudites.
Sounds new age philosophy to me. I wouldn't be surprised if she was feminist early on in her life and got swept up with theosophy. Sounds like she was a liberal. I would stay away from this pedagogy. Homeschool your children!
If you read Saint Paul (I'm sure you do), you can see that knowledge of God is natural (Romans I,16 and ff., Sap. 13) and that natural law is known by gentiles, so they can be naturally good (Romans II,): "when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus". So, to say religions are bad or, worse, evil, is contrary to FAITH. Saint Thomas ends up his comments of the Aristotle's Metaphysics praising God, as expounded in Met. book 12. And, of course, his theology quotes THE PHILOSOPHER time and time again. Faith doesn't say religions are bad, how can it be that saying "there's one God, praised be God" be a bad thing, when it's true and all true is seen in the Spirit? The difference is grace, that you receive grace in the Church, and Faith is a supernatural gift, without which you can't be saved. Your talk is good, but that is a huge mistake. Not all religions are equal, Catholicism has a fundamental difference, but the others contain truthS and are of natural law
For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. Psalm 96.5(95.5 Douay Rheims) So the Bible says that false religions are bad.
But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. (1Cor 10:20)
@@ChristopherMarlowe You need to read the Bible with your intelligence, you have to determine what a passage is about or you're going to be like a protestant, saying that, to have images, constitutes idolatry. The Bible says what you quote, but it also says what I quote, It even says that a God in Athens was representation of Jesus, the unknown God. So, please, have a little discernment, when you are about to read the Bible, because Paul says that you are justified by faith without the works of the law, but that doesn't mean what Luther and other protestans interpret. If gentiles know God and fullfil the law, by applying reason, as Saint Paul says, then your passage needs explanation. For example, the Trinity is known to us by Revelation, S. Th, I, 32, but God is known by reason, as innumerable saints, even Scripture, and gentiles testify, so you can know God, even if you don't know all His attributes... Even if, in reality, we don't know Him for real, in Himself, in this life, as Saint Thomas also says in many places, like S. Th, I, I believe question 12, but don't remember now, at the begening, where he talks about the Name of God. So, that quote, without proper understanding, as it's so common, can lead to heresy, the heresy of irrationalism, a form.of gnosticism
@@eticacasanova It is interesting that I am saying what the Church teaches, and you are calling me a protestant. You do NOT say what the Church teaches, but you make sketchy arguments equating the natural law with false religions. Using reason is not practicing a false religion. Natural law is practical reason. The premise that that creatures have natures about which one can make meaningful arguments. A false religion says that one can find salvation or redemption through something other than the Church. A false religion is NOT the same as natural law.
@@ChristopherMarlowe oh, but you don't say what theChurch teaches, I am telling you what the Church teaches
Isn't there an orthodox concept of spiritual evolution acceptable to the church, specifically that promulgated by the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen? Not an evolution of man becoming God by His own power, but by God reaching down to man and taking him up into Himself, as man reaches down to consume the animal, the animal reaches down to the plant, and the plant reaches down to the mineral, which was the whole purpose of the incarnation of Christ. In this sense, this spiritual evolution can be none other than theistic. That said I don't believe in evolution of the body, but rather involution of the biological. Adam and Eve and the patriarchs enjoyed far greater health than we have.